TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. CDR Authorized Representative , for appellant Shri V.B. Dhar, Consultant, for respondent Per : M.V. Ravindran This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order-in-appeal No.378/2007/MCH/DC/Gr.V-A/06 dated 14/08/2007. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the respondent herein filed 40 Bills of Entries for import of capital goods to be used for Oil Exploration and Exploitation. The respondent herein filed an application for refund of the duty paid on the ground that the benefit of exemption Notification No.515/86-Cus. dated 30.12.1986 is available to them. In the first round of litigation, Tribunal directed the lower authorities to reconsider the issue afresh. The adjudicating authority rejected the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity has erred in sanctioning the refund claim without considering the fact, that principles unjust enrichment is applicable to capital goods also and the onus to prove that the burden of duty has not been passed the consumers, lies on the applicant importer. It is his submission that doctrine of unjust enrichment is a crucial factor which is to be verified strictly while sanctioning a refund claim he would rely upon the following judgment : a) Ship Gravures Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad [2006 (206) E.L.T. 203 (Tri.-Delhi)] b) Oswal Wooler Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2006 (205) E.L.T. 207 (Tri.- Delhi)] c) Wool Worth (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs. (Port). Kolkata [2006 (205) E.L.T. 206 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. He would submit that when the assessee respondent is not allowed to charge price as is being done in the private sector, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 6. At the outset, we find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has not given any proper reasoning for ordering of the refund in cash to the appellant. The reasoning (as per the findings recorded as reproduced in paragraph 2) they are very sketchy and does not refer to any Gazette Notification of the Government of India, nor does it indicate the amounts are being shown by the appellant as receivable in books of accounts. We are of the considered vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
